[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha

> Nobody is stating nothing is real.  Mutually, interdependent, static 
> patterns of value is a better description.

Yes, I agree it's a better description, but I'm a bit burnt by how people 
usually follow that description to its conclusion. The problem usually starts as 
they start dissecting which different types of patterns there are, and if those 
types are, as the thread name states, discrete and dependent. The end result is 
often that the levels are neither discrete nor very dependent and on top of that 
they are also degraded to a "convenient" division of reality but with no real 
connection to it. At this point, the original statement about "interdependent 
patterns" are long forgotten and no second thought is given to the fact that the 
removal of discreteness, dependency and realness have perverted the original 
sound statement into a very flat and incoherent slogan.

>>> In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves.  This is clearly stated 
>>> in the Copleston paper.
>>
>> Must have missed that, any pointers?
> 
> 
> First page, first paragraph.
> 
> http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm

Ah, forgive my ignorance about the term things-in-themselves. I was confused, 
probably because you connected it with my example of the moon vs. pointing at 
the moon. I thought it meant something like, "There are no things outside of our 
perception of it."

But in that case, yes, I agree that in the MoQ, there are no 
things-in-themselves, i.e. a thing does not exist independently of other things, 
only in relationships with other things.

BUT! The exact same goes for patterns as well. In the MoQ, there are neither 
things-in-themselves nor patterns-in-themselves. A pattern only exists in 
relationship with other patterns of the same level. This is directly deduced by 
the quality event where Q produces S and O. And when combining that Q -> S/O 
formula with the levels, we get different types of quality events depending on 
which level is involved.


> It is difficult to predict what this new world-view will give to us.  It 
> hasn't really been adopted by Western science, so who's to know.  But it 
> is a better, more accurate point-of-view.  Seeing the world as a network 
> of interconnected systems (patterns), will be an improvement.  And you 
> can quote me on that.;-)   Don't you think so?

Of course I agree. And BTW, I see that "network of interconnected system" as 
social patterns. I was quite pleased when I saw the scientist in "Mindwalk" 
mention that a systems view of our world is more seriously pursued nowadays. In 
my book, they are doing research about what the social level is about.


>> When physics is investigating small stuff, like quarks and such, it's 
>> true that they don't find much that resembles *things*, i.e. hard 
>> stuff that hurts when you get hit by them. But that doesn't mean that 
>> the piano (which is made of lots of those quarks and such) *doesn't* 
>> hurt when it hits.
> 
> And it doesn't mean that the idea of one independent, falling piano is 
> the best point-of-view either.

No! Wow, that sparked some ideas. Thanks for rattling my cage. :)


> Have all the interrelated causes and conditions been considered for why 
> that piano fell?  And why that piano was there as opposed to somewhere 
> else, and etc., and etc. and etc...   There are interconnections in all 
> directions that may be relevant.  I have very little knowledge 
> concerning science, so if I go on I will only make a bigger fool of 
> myself,  I hope my point makes sense.

It makes very much sense. And no, all interrelated causes and conditions have 
most probably *not* been considered. Gravity for one thing is something that we 
still don't know exactly what it is. If we did, we would probably be able to 
produce gravity just like switching on a light bulb.

> We are now strangling in the narrow view.

I have a feeling I didn't get the full meaning of that. Would you mind elaborating?

	Magnus